User talk:EdJohnston - Wikipedia


1 person in discussion

Article Images

Hello Ed; hope you are doing well.

The userpage of Lumbarschen, who was identified as a sockpuppet in WP:SPI/Arbe21 21 § 30 August 2024, remains to be tagged per WP:SOCKTAG. A clerk will probably notice it before the case is archived, but I thought of letting you know.

I would also like to ask whether the rest of the accounts mentioned in the comment section of the aforementioned case – Henrikurti and Randomuser2412 – were checked for "possible" links? They are reported in a different case (see WP:SPI/NormalguyfromUK § 20 August 2024), but the evidence in relation to Arbe21 21, is compelling. There is some additional suspicious activity that wasn't mentioned; such as Lumbarschen appearing a day after the creation of Skanderbeg's Serbian campaign by Henrikurti, to contest its deletion (diff). Though, this is not necessarily due to sockpuppetry; there are additional possibilities to consider. Demetrios1993 (talk) 14:54, 1 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi Ed,

Sorry to bug you. I recently cleaned out a filmography of Jesus Franco. I feel like an editor with similar editing patterns of User:HerbLightman has come in and made changes to more European genre filmography articles through the User:49Bottles account. Not sure if it needs more time or eyes, but figured I'd point it out. Thanks. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:55, 1 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Whups looks like we both did this around the same time here. Hope it does not complicate things. Andrzejbanas (talk) 22:22, 2 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi, as the page falls under a contentious topic with a 30-500 restriction (WP:PIA), I am curious as to why it wasn't extended-protected per arbitration enforcement? Also, you noted in the WP:AN3 section the existence of a partial rangeblock (on a much wider range), but I am confused as it doesn't seem to be related to that incident at all. Thanks a lot! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 18:29, 2 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Upgraded to indefinite EC protection per your suggestion. The earlier range block was mentioned for reference; perhaps it's just a coincidence. EdJohnston (talk) 18:39, 2 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thanks a lot! Yeah, the disruption that led to the range block seems to have been pretty unrelated. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 19:48, 2 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Could this be deleted as already was, sock got back after while: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Al_Madeena_Cherpulassery&action=history 93.140.190.14 (talk) 19:51, 2 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

The redirect is currently deleted. Another admin has indefinitely protected the redirect against re-creation except by WP:ECR editors. I hope that will be sufficient. EdJohnston (talk)

User was recently site blocked indefinitely from the Japanese wiki for brute forcing edits without consulting the Talk page first (this disruptive cross wiki activity started roughly a month after their initial edits on the EN counterpart), sockpuppetry, harassing JP editors who were against their behaviour with false accusations, as well as maliciously reverting edits of said editors (which coincidentally happened during the edit block request).

This user was under the scrutiny of an RfC and an edit block request, both of which were ignored by said user, except for the socks. User was continuing their edits on the English pages during the duration of both incidences. This user engages in aggressive POV-pushing and does not engage in Talks nor do they present information when pressed, as noted here, here and here. I would like to know what measures could be taken against this user. 14.192.210.103 (talk) 23:40, 2 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

This IP user is an involved editor spreading false allegations. A CheckUser was performed and the sock puppet allegations were not substantiated.
I was blocked based on a comment request where only 3 people gave input, but I believe that to be for reasons of offending Japanese sensibilities. On Japanese Wikipedia I have had a target on my back for a while for attempting to bring the Nanking Massacre article in line with the English counterpart (on Japanese Wikipedia the Nanking Massacre is named "The Nanking Incident" and many of the genocide allegations are scrubbed from the article).
None of this is relevant as I haven't edited on Japanese Wikipedia in a while. Symphony Regalia (talk) 00:27, 3 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
The last paragraph of the CU request by a JP admin mentions "an abnormal amount of logins within a short timeframe" for those accounts, which was the basis of the block by another JP admin. It should be noted that the socks were created days later after your initial edit on the subject, all of which were involved in the same subject matter.
You were requested for comments on both the RfC and the edit block request to defend yourself, would you kindly explain why you chose not to do so? 14.192.210.103 (talk) 01:53, 3 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

One more sock-attacked page "sevens football" needs deletion, see my log Cenderabird (talk) 16:21, 3 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

You are insisting that Sevens Football should be a redirect to Sevens Football Association and not be its own article. Has this been discussed anywhere? I notice that some of the past editors of Sevens Football are now blocked but I'm not well-informed about any sock issues that may exist. You could link to any SPI reports. EdJohnston (talk) 17:29, 3 September 2024 (UTC)Reply